pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23466 · v1 · pith:3MQ7ATGEnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR· nucl-th

Neutron Star Mass-Radius Constraints for EXO 0748-676 from 2008-2025 Quiescent X-ray Spectra

Mingyang Wang , Guobao Zhang , Ang Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRnucl-th
keywords neutron starmass-radius relationquiescent X-ray spectraEXO 0748-676dense matter equation of statecrust coolingX-ray binaryMarkov Chain Monte Carlo
0
0 comments X

The pith

A global fit tying parameters across 20 quiescent spectra constrains the neutron star in EXO 0748-676 to a mass of 1.77 solar masses and radius of 12.62 kilometers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes new mass and radius bounds for the neutron star in the low-mass X-ray binary EXO 0748-676 by jointly analyzing 20 quiescent X-ray spectra taken with Chandra and XMM-Newton between 2008 and 2025. These observations cover two separate quiescent episodes separated by a 2024-2025 outburst. In the global Markov Chain Monte Carlo run, hydrogen column density, mass, and radius are held fixed across all spectra while the distance is set to 7.1 kpc; the resulting posteriors give 1.77^{+0.17}_{-0.22} M_⊙ and 12.62^{+0.56}_{-0.74} km. Adding the distance uncertainty widens the ranges to roughly 1.41-2.11 M_⊙ and 10.15-15.13 km, which lie in the region occupied by stiff equations of state. The same data also show renewed crust cooling after the recent outburst.

Core claim

In a global Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis in which the hydrogen column density, neutron star mass, and radius are tied across all observations, we obtain a neutron-star mass of 1.77^{+0.17}_{-0.22} M_⊙ and a radius of 12.62^{+0.56}_{-0.74} km (1σ credible intervals). Incorporating the distance uncertainty of 7.1±1.2 kpc, we conservatively constrain the neutron-star mass and radius to M≃1.41-2.11 M_⊙ and R≃10.15-15.13 km, favoring relatively stiff dense-matter equations of state. We also trace the thermal evolution across two quiescent epochs and find evidence for renewed crust cooling following the 2024-2025 outburst.

What carries the argument

Global Markov Chain Monte Carlo fit that ties hydrogen column density, mass, and radius across the 20 spectra while using a hydrogen-atmosphere model at fixed distance.

If this is right

  • The joint analysis narrows the low-mass tail of the posterior relative to separate epoch fits.
  • The mass-radius point lies in the parameter space of stiff dense-matter equations of state.
  • Renewed crust cooling after the 2024-2025 outburst provides a second baseline for comparing thermal relaxation timescales.
  • The conservative bounds after folding in distance uncertainty still exclude the softest equations of state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If future distance measurements shrink the 1.2 kpc uncertainty, the radius error bar could tighten enough to discriminate among specific equation-of-state models.
  • Repeated joint analyses of other quiescent neutron-star binaries could build a statistical sample of mass-radius points without assuming identical source properties.
  • Monitoring the source after the next outburst would test whether the crust-cooling curve repeats or depends on accretion history.

Load-bearing premise

The neutron star mass, radius, and hydrogen column density remain the same across all twenty observations from two different quiescent epochs.

What would settle it

A new quiescent spectrum whose best-fit mass or radius lies outside the reported 1σ credible intervals when the other parameters are left free would contradict the tied-parameter assumption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23466 by Ang Li, Guobao Zhang, Mingyang Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Joint MCMC constraints on the neutron-star mass and radius of EXO 0748–676 from Chandra and XMM￾Newton quiescent observations between 2008 and 2025, ob￾tained with the model TBabs*(nsatmos+powerlaw) under the baseline distance assumption d = 7.1 kpc. The shades from dark to light represent the 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ credible regions, respectively. The quoted uncertainties are 1σ credible inter￾vals. The details of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior constraints on the neutron-star mass and radius of EXO 0748−676 derived from observations in the first quiescent epoch (2008–2024, left panel) and the second quiescent epoch (since 2025, right panel), using the model TBabs*(nsatmos+powerlaw) in MCMC analyses and assuming a source distance of 7.1 kpc. The shades from dark to light represent the 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ credible regions, respectively. The qu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior distributions for M, R as the distance is fixed at d = 5.90, 7.10, 8.30 kpc. Different colors correspond to different distances, and within each color the shades from dark to light represent the 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ contours, respec￾tively. the rising phase of two Type-I bursts (Galloway et al. 2010) and with the high burst oscillation amplitudes, casting doubt on a photospheric origin for the lines an… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the effective temperature in the two quiescent epochs of EXO 0748−676. Black points show quies￾cent observations between 2008 and 2021, following the 1985– 2008 outburst (first quiescent epoch). Red points show early quiescent observations in 2025, following the 2024–2025 out￾burst (second quiescent epoch). The shaded region marks the 2024–2025 outburst. Error bars indicate 1σ uncertainties ob… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present new constraints on the mass and radius of the neutron star in the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary EXO 0748$-$676 obtained from a joint analysis of 20 quiescent X-ray observations obtained between 2008 and 2025, including 14 Chandra and 6 XMM-Newton exposures. These data sample two quiescent episodes separated by the 2024$-$2025 outburst. We model the 0.5$-$10 keV spectra with a hydrogen-atmosphere model, assuming a source distance of 7.1 kpc. In a global Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis in which the hydrogen column density, neutron star mass, and radius are tied across all observations, we obtain a neutron-star mass of $1.77^{+0.17}_{-0.22}\,M_\odot$ and a radius of $12.62^{+0.56}_{-0.74}$ km ($1\sigma$ credible intervals). We further perform independent fits to the first and second quiescent epochs and find that the combined data set significantly reduces the low-mass tail in the posterior distribution, leading to tighter lower bounds on the neutron-star mass. Incorporating the distance uncertainty of $7.1\pm1.2$ kpc, we conservatively constrain the neutron-star mass and radius to $M\simeq 1.41-2.11~M_{\odot}$ and $R\simeq 10.15-15.13$ km, favoring relatively stiff dense-matter equations of state. We also trace the thermal evolution across two quiescent epochs and find evidence for renewed crust cooling following the 2024$-$2025 outburst, providing a unique opportunity to compare the thermal relaxation behavior after two distinct accretion episodes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents new mass-radius constraints for the neutron star in EXO 0748-676 from a joint analysis of 20 quiescent X-ray spectra (14 Chandra, 6 XMM-Newton) spanning 2008-2025 across two quiescent epochs. Using a hydrogen-atmosphere model at fixed distance 7.1 kpc, a global MCMC ties N_H, M, and R across observations to obtain M = 1.77^{+0.17}_{-0.22} M_⊙ and R = 12.62^{+0.56}_{-0.74} km (1σ); independent epoch fits show the joint data reduce the low-mass tail. After conservatively incorporating ±1.2 kpc distance uncertainty, the ranges broaden to M ≃ 1.41-2.11 M_⊙ and R ≃ 10.15-15.13 km, favoring stiff EOS; the work also reports evidence for renewed crust cooling after the 2024-2025 outburst.

Significance. If the tied-parameter global fit and distance handling hold, this adds a well-sampled M-R measurement from a quiescent LMXB with multi-epoch coverage, enabling direct comparison of thermal relaxation after distinct accretion episodes. The global MCMC approach with tied parameters across 20 observations is a methodological strength that reduces degeneracies and tightens the low-mass posterior tail relative to epoch-specific fits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Methods (global MCMC description)] The global MCMC ties M and R (and N_H) across all 20 observations at fixed 7.1 kpc; while the abstract states that independent epoch fits were performed and the joint data reduce the low-mass tail, the manuscript should quantify this improvement (e.g., the shift in the 16th percentile of the mass posterior or overlap metrics between epoch-only and joint posteriors) to substantiate the claim that the combined dataset significantly tightens the lower bound.
  2. [Abstract / Results (distance handling)] Distance is fixed at 7.1 kpc for the quoted 1σ credible intervals, with ±1.2 kpc uncertainty then folded in conservatively to produce the broad ranges M ≃ 1.41-2.11 M_⊙ and R ≃ 10.15-15.13 km. A proper marginalization over distance within the MCMC (rather than post-hoc broadening) would better propagate the uncertainty into the final EOS constraints and should be shown or justified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Discussion] The statement that the results 'favor relatively stiff dense-matter equations of state' would benefit from an explicit comparison (e.g., a figure overlaying the posterior on specific EOS curves or a table of excluded models) rather than a qualitative assertion.
  2. [Methods] Clarify the exact treatment of the atmosphere model parameters (e.g., whether surface gravity is self-consistently updated with the fitted M and R or held fixed) and any assumed composition or magnetic field effects.
  3. [Results (thermal evolution)] The thermal evolution discussion across epochs is interesting but would be strengthened by reporting specific temperature or flux change values with uncertainties for the two quiescent periods.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and positive assessment of the work. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods (global MCMC description)] The global MCMC ties M and R (and N_H) across all 20 observations at fixed 7.1 kpc; while the abstract states that independent epoch fits were performed and the joint data reduce the low-mass tail, the manuscript should quantify this improvement (e.g., the shift in the 16th percentile of the mass posterior or overlap metrics between epoch-only and joint posteriors) to substantiate the claim that the combined dataset significantly tightens the lower bound.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification would strengthen the claim. The independent epoch fits have already been performed as part of the analysis. In the revised manuscript we will report the 16th percentile of the mass posterior for each epoch-specific fit alongside the joint-fit value, and we will add a short comparison (including the shift in the lower bound) in the results section to document the tightening. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract / Results (distance handling)] Distance is fixed at 7.1 kpc for the quoted 1σ credible intervals, with ±1.2 kpc uncertainty then folded in conservatively to produce the broad ranges M ≃ 1.41-2.11 M_⊙ and R ≃ 10.15-15.13 km. A proper marginalization over distance within the MCMC (rather than post-hoc broadening) would better propagate the uncertainty into the final EOS constraints and should be shown or justified.

    Authors: We acknowledge that full marginalization over distance inside the MCMC would be more statistically rigorous. However, re-running the global fit with distance as an additional free parameter is computationally expensive for 20 spectra. Our conservative post-hoc broadening already incorporates the full ±1.2 kpc uncertainty without assuming a distance prior, yielding the broad ranges used for the EOS discussion. We will add an explicit justification of this choice in the methods section, noting that the conservative ranges remain the basis for the EOS conclusions. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; direct MCMC fit to spectral data

full rationale

The paper's central result is a global MCMC fit in which neutron-star mass M and radius R are free parameters (tied across the 20 observations) whose posterior is sampled directly from the 0.5-10 keV spectral data under a fixed distance and hydrogen-atmosphere model. No equation in the provided text reduces M or R to a previously fitted quantity, renames an input as a prediction, or invokes a self-citation chain whose uniqueness theorem forces the reported values. Independent epoch fits are mentioned only to show that the joint data tighten the low-mass tail; this is a standard statistical combination, not a definitional loop. The distance uncertainty is folded in after the fit and does not alter the internal derivation. The result is therefore self-contained against external spectral benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about the atmosphere model and parameter tying; distance is the main free parameter with stated uncertainty. No invented entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Source distance = 7.1 kpc
    Fixed at 7.1 kpc with conservative incorporation of ±1.2 kpc uncertainty; sets absolute scale for radius.
  • Hydrogen column density
    Tied across all 20 observations and fitted in global MCMC.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Hydrogen-atmosphere model accurately describes the 0.5-10 keV emission
    Invoked to model all spectra in the joint analysis.
  • domain assumption Neutron star mass, radius, and N_H are identical across observations
    Tied in the global MCMC as stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5873 in / 1439 out tokens · 32664 ms · 2026-06-26T07:25:09.403593+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  2. [2]

    2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 51, 100535, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100535 10 Baillot d’Etivaux, N., Guillot, S., Margueron, J., et al

    Aromal, P., Kashyap, U., Chakraborty, M., et al. 2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 51, 100535, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100535 10 Baillot d’Etivaux, N., Guillot, S., Margueron, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f6c

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100535 2026

  3. [3]

    2024, ApJL, 977, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9337

    Bhattacharya, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & Shaw, G. 2024, ApJL, 977, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9337

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9337 2024

  4. [4]

    1998, A&A Rv, 8, 279, doi: 10.1007/s001590050012

    Tavani, M. 1998, A&A Rv, 8, 279, doi: 10.1007/s001590050012

    work page doi:10.1007/s001590050012 1998

  5. [5]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1452

    Cheng, Z., M´ endez, M., D´ ıaz-Trigo, M., & Costantini, E. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1452

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1452 2017

  6. [6]

    2002, Nature, 420, 51, doi: 10.1038/nature01159

    Cottam, J., Paerels, F., & Mendez, M. 2002, Nature, 420, 51, doi: 10.1038/nature01159

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01159 2002

  7. [7]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17191, 1

    Degenaar, N., Homan, J., Cackett, E., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17191, 1

    2025

  8. [8]

    2009, MNRAS, 398, L63, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00711.x van Hoof, A

    Degenaar, N., Wijnands, R., Wolff, M. T., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, L26, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00655.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00655.x 2009

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Degenaar, N., Wolff, M. T., Ray, P. S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1409, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17562.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17562.x 2011

  10. [10]

    2014, ApJ, 791, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/47 D’Elia, V., Kennea, J

    Degenaar, N., Medin, Z., Cumming, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 791, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/47 D’Elia, V., Kennea, J. A., Page, K. L., Parsotan, T. M., & Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 36653, 1 D´ ıaz Trigo, M., Boirin, L., Costantini, E., M´ endez, M., &

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/1/47 2014

  11. [11]

    2011, A&A, 528, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016200

    Parmar, A. 2011, A&A, 528, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016200

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016200 2011

  12. [12]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  13. [13]

    K., Lin, J., Chakrabarty, D., & Hartman, J

    Galloway, D. K., Lin, J., Chakrabarty, D., & Hartman, J. M. 2010, ApJL, 711, L148, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/711/2/L148

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/711/2/l148 2010

  14. [14]

    , keywords =

    Galloway, D. K., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 268, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13219.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13219.x 2008

  15. [15]

    R., & Callanan, P

    Garcia, M. R., & Callanan, P. J. 1999, AJ, 118, 1390, doi: 10.1086/301014

    work page doi:10.1086/301014 1999

  16. [16]

    N., & White, N

    Gottwald, M., Haberl, F., Parmar, A. N., & White, N. E. 1986, ApJ, 308, 213, doi: 10.1086/164491

    work page doi:10.1086/164491 1986

  17. [17]

    Guillot, S., & Rutledge, R. E. 2014, ApJL, 796, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/796/1/L3

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/796/1/l3 2014

  18. [18]

    O., Rybicki, G

    Heinke, C. O., Rybicki, G. B., Narayan, R., & Grindlay, J. E. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1090, doi: 10.1086/503701

    work page doi:10.1086/503701 2006

  19. [19]

    S., & Cominsky, L

    Hertz, P., Wood, K. S., & Cominsky, L. R. 1993, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 183, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 55.15

    1993

  20. [20]

    Jonker, P. G. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa, Z. Wang, A. Cumming, & V. M. Kaspi (AIP), 519–525, doi: 10.1063/1.2900287

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2900287 2008

  21. [21]

    H., Ingram, A., Middleton, M., & Drake, J

    Knight, A. H., Ingram, A., Middleton, M., & Drake, J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3722

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3722 2022

  22. [22]

    M., & Steiner, A

    Lattimer, J. M., & Steiner, A. W. 2014, ApJ, 784, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/123

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/123 2014

  23. [23]

    2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 28, 19, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.07.001

    Li, A., Zhu, Z.-Y., Zhou, E.-P., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 28, 19, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.07.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2020.07.001 2020

  24. [24]

    L., Zhang, G., et al

    Li, A., Watts, A. L., Zhang, G., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  25. [25]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 119503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2761-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2761-4

  26. [26]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 1053, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1053

    Lin, J., ¨Ozel, F., Chakrabarty, D., & Psaltis, D. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 1053, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1053

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/2/1053 2010

  27. [27]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 3634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1585

    Marino, A., Degenaar, N., Di Salvo, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1585

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1585 2018

  28. [28]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, 123005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123005

    Miao, Z., Qi, L., Zhang, J., Li, A., & Ge, M. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 123005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123005 2024

  29. [29]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b 2021

  30. [30]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., Casares, J., O’Brien, K., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, L136, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00630.x ¨Ozel, F. 2006, Nature, 441, 1115, doi: 10.1038/nature04858

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 2019

  31. [31]

    Thermal and transport properties of the neutron star inner crust

    Page, D., & Reddy, S. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1201.5602, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.5602

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.5602 2012

  32. [32]

    S., & Degenaar, N

    Parikh, A. S., & Degenaar, N. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3734

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3734 2021

  33. [33]

    S., Wijnands, R., Homan, J., et al

    Parikh, A. S., Wijnands, R., Homan, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038198

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038198 2020

  34. [34]

    N., White, N

    Parmar, A. N., White, N. E., Giommi, P., et al. 1985, IAUC, 4039, 1

    1985

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Ratti, E. M., Steeghs, D. T. H., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 75, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19999.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19999.x 2012

  36. [36]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c 2019

  37. [37]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Ray, P. S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 2021

  38. [38]

    W., Lattimer, J

    Steiner, A. W., Lattimer, J. M., & Brown, E. F. 2013, ApJL, 765, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L5

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/l5 2013

  39. [39]

    2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 53, 100595, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2026.100595 11

    Subba, N. 2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 53, 100595, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2026.100595 11

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2026.100595 2026

  40. [40]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06201

    Subba, N., Subba, N., Paul, J., Sharma, P., & Ghimiray, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06201

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.06201 2024

  41. [41]

    Y., & Werner, K

    Suleimanov, V., Potekhin, A. Y., & Werner, K. 2009, A&A, 500, 891, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912121

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912121 2009

  42. [42]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487, doi: 10.1086/177435

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/177435 1996

  43. [43]

    R., & Strohmayer, T

    Villarreal, A. R., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2004, ApJL, 614, L121, doi: 10.1086/425737

    work page doi:10.1086/425737 2004

  44. [44]

    L., Andersson, N., Chakrabarty, D., et al

    Watts, A. L., Andersson, N., Chakrabarty, D., et al. 2016, Reviews of Modern Physics, 88, 021001, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021001

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.021001 2016

  45. [45]

    2004, Cooling curves of accretion-heated neutron stars, Chandra Proposal ID 06400229

    Wijnands, R. 2004, Cooling curves of accretion-heated neutron stars, Chandra Proposal ID 06400229

    2004

  46. [46]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016 3.2

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  47. [47]

    T., Becker, P

    Wolff, M. T., Becker, P. A., Ray, P. S., & Wood, K. S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 1099, doi: 10.1086/444348

    work page doi:10.1086/444348 2005

  48. [48]

    C., & Yagi, K

    Yunes, N., Miller, M. C., & Yagi, K. 2022, Nature Reviews Physics, 4, 237, doi: 10.1038/s42254-022-00420-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00420-y 2022

  49. [49]

    Modeling Neutron Star Atmospheres

    Zavlin, V. E., & Pavlov, G. G. 2002, in Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants, ed. W. Becker, H. Lesch, & J. Tr ¨umper, 263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0206025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0206025 2002

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Zhang, G., M´ endez, M., Jonker, P., & Hiemstra, B. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1077, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18443.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18443.x 2011